Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 470
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Ronald K. Lewis worked for Andy Frain Services, Inc. as an event ambassador at the U.S. Open hosted by Oakmont Country Club.
- Claimant reported for a night shift from 7:00 p.m. June 9, 2007 to 7:00 a.m. June 10, 2007 and was stationed in the Lexus Tent watching the car.
- Around 6:00–6:45 a.m. on June 10, 2007, Claimant left his post to investigate noises and lights and was injured on Oakmont grounds.
- Employer issued a Notice of Compensation Denial on July 23, 2007, denying benefits on grounds that Claimant was not an employee and outside the course of employment.
- Claimant filed a claim petition seeking temporary total disability and medical expenses; WCJ bifurcated proceedings and reserved only the course-of-employment issue for adjudication.
- WCJ found Claimant not in the course of employment and also found that he abandoned his post in violation of a positive work order; Board affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lewis in the course of employment at injury time? | Lewis argues he was performing employer duties and within the course of employment. | Employer/Board contends he left his post, violating a positive work order, taking him outside the course of employment. | No; not in the course of employment. |
| Does violation of a positive work order justify forfeiture of benefits under Dickey? | Dickey permits forfeiture only when clearly shown violation relates to the injury and work duties. | Violation supports forfeiture of benefits for disobeying a work order. | Not necessary to decide; affirmed on course-of-employment denial independent of Dickey. |
| Are the WCJ's credibility findings supported by substantial evidence? | Claimant challenges the credibility findings as unsupported or biased. | WCJ credibility findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence. | Yes; findings 7(b)-(d) and 7(h) are supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickey v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R.R. Co., 297 Pa. 172 (Pa. 1929) (forfeiture for disobeying a positive work order)
- U.S. Airways v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (course of employment includes being on premises while engaged in employer's affairs)
- Camino v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (City Mission), 796 A.2d 412 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (three-prong test for disentitling benefits when disobeying orders)
- Nevin Trucking v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Murdock), 667 A.2d 262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (three-prong Dickey framework development)
- Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (McDowell), 730 A.2d 562 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (liberal construction of 'in the course of employment')
- Pesta v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wise Foods), 153 Pa.Cmwlth. 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (injury within course if related to employment duties)
- Hoffmaster v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Senco Products Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (capricious disregard review; standard of substantial evidence)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Reed), 785 A.2d 1068 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (credibility and factual support standards on appeal)